Maryland Criminal Attorney Blog

As a Former Assistant United State's Attorney and current Maryland Federal Criminal Attorney I have handled hundreds of Federal Drug Cases. Before as a prosecutor and now as a defense attorney I am often amazed at how quickly and often lawyers plead their client's guiilty in highly defensible cases.

I take the opposite approach and employ a scorched earth policy of fighting every case on every level before even considering a plea to include attacking the validity of search warrants which many attorneys never even consider. Here is a written motion to suppress we filed in a case recently attacking the warrant and moving to suppress the evidence.

Continue reading " Federal Drug Case Motion to Suppress " »

Today the Maryland Court of Appeals issued an opinion on the proper use of voire dire in Maryland criminal trials.

Facts: Charles & Drake were tried together on charges stemming from the death of Bryant Jones. Both were convicted of second degree murder. Prior to the trial, the State submitted 3 voir dire questions concerning “CSI type” scientific evidence. Over defense counsel’s objection, the trial judge asked a single question which he drafted stating that he assumed the jurors watched TV such as CSI and Law and Order and that those shows relied on scientific evidence to convict- therefore, if “you are currently of the opinion or belief that you cannot convict a defendant without scientific evidence, please rise.” The Court of Special Appeals ruled that the question was appropriate. The Court of Appeals reversed.

Ruling: The Court noted that the language of the voir dire question suggested that the jury’s only option was to convict, regardless of the evidence presented. This suggestive question poisoned the jury thereby depriving the defendant of the right to a fair trial.

Maryland Criminal Attorney reviews Miranda decision by Supreme Court. In its recent decision in Berghuis v. Thompkins the Supreme Court, in what some view as a paradoxical ruling, ruled that a defendant must affirmatively invoke his right to remain silent or his right to an attorney after being advised of his Miranda Rights. In other words, the Court ruled that a defendant must speak in order to invoke his right not to speak.

In this case, Thomkins was arrested for murder. He was taken into custody and read the Miranda Rights that are familiar to most all of us who have ever seen an episode of Law and Order. After being advised of his right to remain silent, Thomkins did just that; he remained silent throughout almost 3 hours of questioning by the detective. The detective finally broke Thomkins' silence by asking him if he prayed to God to which he replied that he did. The Detective then asked him if he prayed to God for forgiveness for shooting the victim in this case and Thompkins answered in the affirmative.

Continue reading " Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Ruling " »